Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
[X] 1: No Aft Phasers

random_npc said:
So instead, I'm going to look at the intention of the system.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. It is farcical to believe that, even if we have optimized literally everything else to the highest extent possibly to leverage and benefit from focused forward firepower, it is still more effective to trade that focus down for more coverage.

Here's the chain of logic:
1. Assumption: The relative benefit of focused firepower over coverage scales with a ship's maneuverability.*
2. Fact: the Soyuz is about as maneuverable as is physically possible.
3. Fact: We have had focus versus coverage voting options on most past ships.
4. Assumption: Sayle is neither a colossal dickwad nor a laughable incompetent.

* The degree to which it does so is irrelevant to the remainder of my argument..

Consequently:
1. If the Soyuz is as maneuverable as is possible or at least plausible, then the Soyuz derives the maximum possible overall effectiveness from focused firepower over coverage.
2. If Sayle has been routinely presenting voting options that offer a focus versus coverage choice, and Sayle is neither a colossal dickwad nor a total incompetent, then both options must be valid- there must exist some case where each option is overall more effective.
3. If any case exists at all where focused firepower is overall more effective than coverage, and the Soyuz is as maneuverable as possible or at least plausible, then focused firepower is overall more effective than coverage on the Soyuz.

Q.E.D. Focused is better on the Soyuz.

[X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
[X] 1: No Aft Phasers
 
[X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
[X] 1: No Aft Phasers

Based on our readings, a BoP is, in fact, most vulnerable right after it ambushes you, since while it has incredible acceleration, it's maneuverability is not great by default. They're made to shoot and then scoot, not win dogfights.

If that's the case, we want to be able to evade the initial strike, and alpha it with maximum prejudice because they're fragile compared to our ship. Spreading out isn't going to work out well for us because the entire trick to economically countering a BoP boils down to "Strip its shields as fast as possible before it can get another chance to cloak."

If we lack the agility even with everything we"ve done to turn the tables, slightly superior firing arcs won't change that, since if they're agile enough to deny us a bow firing angle, they're agile enough to never stop being on our aft. Even beyond that, these should be operating either in squadrons, or escorting something with better coverage in the first place. Let's thus do our best to plan assuming our ships can actually seize advantage in a turnfight and try to aim to make that advantage stick.
 
Last edited:
notgreat said:
I really don't think 4x focus without any aft phasers is a good idea. A 90-degree cone in front is plenty for most of a fight, but if the ship gets ambushed from behind it won't be able to do anything for way too long and will likely be crippled or destroyed before it can get the enemy into its frontal arc. Aft phasers are perfect for fixing that problem while keeping average damage high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If this ship is ambushed from behind while on its own, I think it's unlikely a single pair of aft phasers is going to change the outcome of the fight. I definitely don't think it's going to matter often enough to justify a 50% increase in the cost of weapons systems, especially when we're trying to keep costs low.

The general problem with aft phasers is that they're tactically inferior just by their nature. Our ships are generally designed with the expectation that they'll point themselves at the enemy– and therefore point their aft away from the enemy, which in turn means that aft phasers will inevitably see less use.
 
This ship is expected to fight Klingon Birds of Prey. Maximum coverage is vital, these ships can be expected to start nearly every encounter taking an alpha strike from the worst possible positioning, and have no maneuverability advantage.

Hell, just the chance of phasering a torpedo coming from the rear before it hits is enough to justify rear phasers.

[X] 0: Four High-Coverage Phaser Placements (+50% Coverage, +2 Average Damage)
[X] 1: Two Aft Phasers (+25% Coverage) (+1 Average Damage)
 
Horologer said:
If this ship is ambushed from behind while on its own, I think it's unlikely a single pair of aft phasers is going to change the outcome of the fight. I definitely don't think it's going to matter often enough to justify a 50% increase in the cost of weapons systems, especially when we're trying to keep costs low.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What makes you say that? Ships are very vulnerable after uncloaking, so the aft phasers would be enough to do crippling damage if they fire just after the cloak drops and they don't have a shield up yet. Perhaps not enough to destroy the ambushing ship entirely, but enough to give a major edge in the fight.

That means that the ambush would have to instead come from the side, where it's much easier to turn and then hit them with our primary front armament.
 
[X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
[X] 1: No Aft Phasers

My counter argument to "but more coverage good against Bird of Prey" is "two Soyuz will beat one BoP".
 
[X] 0: Four High-Coverage Phaser Placements (+50% Coverage, +2 Average Damage)
[X] 1: Two Aft Phasers (+25% Coverage) (+1 Average Damage)
 
[X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
[X] 1: No Aft Phasers

This is a highly manoeuvrable gunboat which is meant to trade efficiently on a per-hull basis whilst operating in concert with other larger ships. It does not and should not attempt to cover every contingency.
 
Remove ads
Weapon Arcs
  • Informational
    • Having spent more time than is reasonable in the spreadsheet, ships are now set up to have twenty-four weapon slots both ventral and dorsal, for a total of forty eight. Each of these faces out into a 15 degree arc, and each weapon slot has it's own individual damage output and firing arc based on the weapon slotted there. So for example a "Type-1 Phaser" has a 105 degree arc and can deal 4 damage to anything within that range.

    So for a coverage-based phaser layout for the Soyuz, it would have the phasers spaced 90 degrees apart, so you'd have a damage spread across the arc (180 degrees) of 4-4-4-4-4-4-8-4-4-4-4-4-4.

    For a focus-based layout, they'd be slaved together in a single position, so you'd have (105 degrees) 8-8-8-8-8-8-8.

    It doesn't translate across perfectly because the old system used 90-degree arcs and this is 6x more granular, but that's the idea for future ships anyway. For me at least the advantage is being able to have more than one type or configuration of energy weapon at the same time.
     
    Last edited:
  • Informational
    • [X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
    [X] 1: Two Aft Phasers (+25% Coverage) (+1 Average Damage)
     
    [X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
    [X] 1: Two Aft Phasers (+25% Coverage) (+1 Average Damage)
     
    Skippy said:
    [X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
    [X] 1: No Aft Phasers

    This is a highly manoeuvrable gunboat which is meant to trade efficiently on a per-hull basis whilst operating in concert with other larger ships. It does not and should not attempt to cover every contingency.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yea I can't see the utility of the aft phasers being sufficient to justify the cost.

    [X] 0: Four High-Focus Phaser Placements (+25% Coverage, +3 Average Damage)
    [X] 1: No Aft Phasers
     
    notgreat said:
    What makes you say that? Ships are very vulnerable after uncloaking, so the aft phasers would be enough to do crippling damage if they fire just after the cloak drops and they don't have a shield up yet. Perhaps not enough to destroy the ambushing ship entirely, but enough to give a major edge in the fight.

    That means that the ambush would have to instead come from the side, where it's much easier to turn and then hit them with our primary front armament.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's not really a whole lot of return for investment, though. I mean we're already talking about a pretty specific edge case where this ship is attacked by a cloaked bird of prey and it's alone, and the value we get in that case is that the bird of prey is forced to attack at an angle that's more favorable for us.

    Impia said:
    When your ships are attacked while moving, do you expect one to have been flying backward?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    No, but if a ship's in a group, it's much easier for the ambushed ship to focus on evading the alpha strike while its companions wheel about and force the ambusher to peel off or risk destruction. It doesn't have to worry about getting in blows itself, just avoiding hits while its companions pile on the enemy.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top